We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
Introduction
Nature is pervaded by variation: the physical environment is ever changing in time and in space, populations fluctuate, and no two organisms are the same. To explore natural environments is to be confronted by variation, and the science of ecology is challenged by the persistent question: is this variation more than variation itself? Environmental variation can cause population fluctuations (Ripa et al. 1998), but can it do more than this? Does it affect how organisms interact with one another? Does it shape populations and communities? How and in what ways? Biologists firmly accept that variation shapes the organisms. Heritable variation is the engine of evolution, which is fuelled by environmental change. In life-history theory, it is widely accepted that organisms show adaptations to variation in the physical environment, exemplified by evolutionary theories of iteroparity and seed dormancy (Cohen 1966, Bulmer 1985, Ellner 1985a, Real and Ellner 1992). Fundamentally, these adaptations allow species to take advantage of favourable environmental conditions without being too vulnerable to unfavourable environmental conditions.
Community ecologists have had a variety of attitudes to variation, especially variation in the physical environment (Chesson and Case 1986). Successional change after disturbance had a prominent role in the early development of plant and ecosystem ecology (Clements 1916) and now has an important role in diversity maintenance theory relying on competition–colonisation tradeoffs (Hastings 1980). Spatial variation is often assumed to provide for, and should therefore promote, species diversity (Pacala and Tilman 1994, Amarasekare and Nisbet 2001, Snyder and Chesson 2004). Although it is often assumed that regular temporal variation, such as seasonal and diurnal variation, provides for temporal niches (Armstrong and McGehee 1976, Levins 1979, Brown 1989a, b, Chesson et al. 2001), there is also much unpredictable temporal variation, such as deviations of weather and climate from seasonal averages (Davis 1986) and disturbances such as fire (Connell 1978, Bond and Keeley 2005). Should we think of this unpredictable temporal variation as disruptive to ecological processes (May 1974)? Do organisms fail to adapt to unpredictable temporal variation? Are they merely jerked around by it? Life-history theory suggests otherwise (Bulmer 1985, Real and Ellner 1992), yet conclusions are often drawn from models that reflect no such adaptations, for example Lotka–Volterra models with unpredictable environmental variation added arbitrarily (Turelli 1981, Kilpatrick and Ives 2003).
This case study examines the shifting bilingual preference of three French/English bilingual children over a three-year period. It also clarifies the distinction between the many often misleading terms used to refer to bilingual preference (i.e., a bilingual's language choice). The children's fluctuating bilingual preference is accounted for in terms of three contextual domains: home, school, and community. The home domain was predominantly French-speaking, while the community domain shifted between predominantly English-speaking Louisiana and French-speaking Québec. The 10-year-old identical twin girls were in a French immersion program in Louisiana during the entire three-year period; their 12-year-old brother was not. A new, domain-sensitive longitudinal measure – the bilingual preference ratio (BPR) – was created and applied for each child using 36 months of weekly tape recordings of mealtime conversations. BPR fluctuations indicate that the greatest effect on the children's language preference was community immersion in the target language. However, the twins' markedly greater preference for speaking French at home in Louisiana is attributed to the influence of French immersion at school.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.